So rather than make a technological change, which according to the parent post has no effect on the quality of the end system, Europe should wage war on the US if the US did something aggressive to protect it's troops in the middle of what I assume would already be World War 3? (an overt conflict with Russia or China?)
It's not about making it easy for the US. Shooting down satellites is not going to be a tough problem for the US military. It's about convincing the US not to do that.
It's like not leaving food out to avoid attracting bears. Sure, it would be nice if the bears would just not bother you in the first place. But you can't influence their behavior directly, you can only influence what you do.
My whole point is that the USA can act without Europe having a say, whether Europe likes it or not. It's only reasonable for Europe to take that into account in what they do.
You can take some principled stand to make some sort of abstract point nobody will understand, and have the USA shoot down your satellites in the case of war. Or you can make a small change to your design and have the USA leave them alone. I don't see why taking the second option is so terrible.
If Europe had created Galileo like originally envisioned the USA could not jam Galileo without also jamming GPS. Hence they would need to ask Europe to turn of Galileo or turn Galileo off for them, i.e. shooting down the satellites, which Europe should treat as an act of war. Hence, neither of both options go without Europe having a say.
The abstract point here is akin to mutually assured destruction. It keeps peace.
Having Galileo like originally envisioned and Europe taking a robust defensive strategy w.r.t. to it's satellites would mean GPS for everybody or for nobody or war with Europe. And Europe should make sure nobody wants war with them.
The frequencies were selected to allow for easy compatibility with GPS not because the EU didn't want the US to be able to selectively jam Galileo.
No one in Europe really thinks of a war with the US as a real possibility and since the know what ICBM stands for they also know they've lost before the first shot is fired.
> and have the USA shoot down your satellites in the case of war.
And then we shoot down their satellites, too. The US acting like they can do whatever they want is extremely annoying and has to end, they’re just a country, not the king of the world.
> they’re just a country, not the king of the world.
Militarily and economically the US is an empire (by definition, as its growth is tied to warfare, expansion, and dominance). Just like the British empire was before it.
For example - it has 400 major, and another 400 minor, bases (some with nuclear-ready weapon systems) stationed in foreign countries. While no foreign country has a base in the US.
It's more like giving the bully his favorite seat. You can stand on principle, but the result will be more or less the same either way, and giving him what he wants doesn't hurt you.
That's a great strategy when you're a member of a society that mostly doesn't put up with bullying, and will ultimately be on your side if their aggression gets too much attention. It's a terrible strategy when you're living in an anarchy and the bully is as mighty as everybody else put together.
Yes. That's why I think a federal EU with united army and foreign policy stands a much better chance of achieving beneficial outcomes for its citizens.
With the constellations on different frequencies, European powers also have the ability to engage in localised GPS jamming while leaving Galileo available for their military.
Blowing up 1 or more satellites will also increase the amount of orbital debris floating around.
There is already something near 1 million pieces of space junk being actively tracked to avoid possible collisions with existing space vehicles/satellites.
This space junk problem eventually reaches a point where no orbital vehicles will be able to reach, stay in, and/or pass into space.
Europe is part of NATO and has major incentives to cooperate with the US. In the scenario where the US would have to shoot down Galileo sats, would most likely be one where the US is protecting Europe from China or Russia as we're talking WWIII. I imagine this little story is little more than a tempest in a teapot designed to enrage Euro nationalists. The reality is that when you're in a shared defense agreement, your weapons systems, including nav systems, need a high level of cooperation. A frequency shift isn't the tragedy you're making it out to be.
PfP isn't a mutual defense agreement, it's more like lets play airsoft together.
Hence Russia is a participant, not exactly a NATO membership candidate or ally.
In the case of a hot war between the US and Russia, the first victims (of mushroom clouds) will be every single EU NATO member that hosts US bases and US nuclear weapons.
So I'm not quite sure what the gain is for those members as they will not survive (the US might, but they won't).
In the scenario you mentioned Europe could turn off Galileo if deemed necessary, no need for the USA to shoot it down. The solution taken just makes it easier for USA to wage war against Europes interests.
Europe isn't a single entity. Imagine a conflict in Eastern Europe that the US is part of. The rest of Europe has built its infrastructure on Galileo and shutting it down means major economic and infrastructure issues for Europeans not involved in the conflict. The US asks them to turn it off, but Merkel says no. Or Greece says no because Putin promised them $200m in aid. EU decisions have to be unanimous. Now what? Lets stop pretending European nations, even members of NATO, all care about each other. There's no polite discourse here. Just naked self-interest that's easy for the enemy to game.
Merkel might decide that she wants nothing to do with Russia taking Estonia, Romania, and Bulgaria. This is why we need technical solutions, not political ones. Banking on Europe being nice to each other is hilariously short-sighted and ahistoric.
Note, Europeans are free to leave NATO whenever they wish if they don't like our defense posture and technical requirements. I imagine letting the Russian military loose is probably not within Europe's self-interest, so enforcing technical requirements that protect all of Europe makes sense. It leaves less room for cowardly players like Merkel to appease expansionist dictators like Putin. If anything, the US did European security a favor with this policy.
What is an enemy for the USA might not be an enemy of Europe. I can just repeat myself. If it is in the interest of Europe to turn Galileo off, they can do so. If it is not in their interest, they shouldn't do so. Now, that the decision making in the EU is inefficient might be an _internal_ issue that needs to be solved, not be workedaround by giving the USA the final say.
It's not Europes business to make it easy for the USA to wage war.